das Neves H J, Vital J S, Vasconcelos A M, da Silva M D, Alves P, Santana A, Rocha M P
Rev Port Cardiol. 1989 Jul-Aug;8(7-8):521-4.
The plasma concentration profiles of diltiazem were determined in three series of twelve male volunteers to whom a single doses of 60 mg of diltiazem was administered. Three commercial diltiazem preparations, labelled A, B and C were evaluated. The plasmas were analysed for diltiazem concentration by a new HPLC technique and from the data on concentration profiles, the pharmacokinetic parameters, Cmax, Tmax, T1/2, AUC0-12 and AUC0-infinity were calculated from the function derived by computerized curve fitting and integration. Computerized Pattern Analysis was used for product comparison, based on the plasmatic concentration and the calculated pharmacokinetic data. Differences observed between the three products regarding plasmatic levels and pharmacokinetic, were within the range values defined by individual variation, and were similar to the ones described in the literature for single doses of diltiazem - 60 mg. However, the multiparametric analysis showed that the studied preparations formed two distinct groups: preparation B was different from preparations A and C. This means that preparation B was not bioequivalent to preparations A and C, both considered as bioequivalent.
在三组共12名男性志愿者中测定了地尔硫䓬的血浆浓度曲线,这些志愿者均接受了60毫克地尔硫䓬的单次给药。对三种市售的地尔硫䓬制剂(分别标记为A、B和C)进行了评估。采用一种新的高效液相色谱技术分析血浆中的地尔硫䓬浓度,并根据浓度曲线数据,通过计算机曲线拟合和积分得到的函数计算药代动力学参数Cmax、Tmax、T1/2、AUC0 - 12和AUC0 - ∞。基于血浆浓度和计算得到的药代动力学数据,使用计算机模式分析进行产品比较。观察到三种产品在血浆水平和药代动力学方面的差异在个体差异所定义的范围内,并且与文献中描述的单次给予60毫克地尔硫䓬的情况相似。然而,多参数分析表明,所研究的制剂形成了两个不同的组:制剂B与制剂A和C不同。这意味着制剂B与制剂A和C不等效,而制剂A和C被认为是等效的。